If it's not true wouldn't JR be willing to lose money or not profit in order to put a winning team on the field? That would be the definition of putting winning before profitability.

It's a business, you try to maximize profits while minimizing costs. If the Sox value increases by whatever incremental amount per year, regardless of team performance I would think JR would take that over potentially losing value by investing in high risk, high value contracts.

Not trading for Jake Peavy, not trading for Edwin Jacskson, not picking up the contract of Alex Rios, not signing Adam Dunn etc. cost the Whtie Sox ownership group, which Jerry Reinsdorf heads, money in a way that contradicts your assumption.

Teams that are willing to lose money to put a winning team on the field rarely put winning teams on the field. Even more rarely do they have stockholders. The big money teams have more money to spend.

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to demand your favorite team's ownership lose money to provide you a winner. It is particularly unrealistic and unreasonable to suggest that fans should deny support for their team unless the francise loses money to provide a winner, especially when fans complain about moves that prove bad for baseball that cost the team money at the same time fans complain that management is unwilling to spend money.